DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Using claim 1 as an example, in lines 6-7 it states, “choosing a first virtual prop in the least two virtual props,” (emphasis added) it appears that a better word for “in” should be either “from” or “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a prop interaction method in a virtual scene, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: displaying at least part of a region in the virtual scene in a human-computer interaction interface, the at least part of the region comprising a virtual object; in response to appearance of at least two virtual props in the at least part of the region, each having a corresponding interaction function in the at least part of the region, choosing a first virtual prop in the least two virtual props to be in a selected state based on at least a spatial relationship between each of the least two virtual props and the virtual object; and displaying at least one interaction control corresponding to the first virtual prop, wherein the interaction control, when triggered, is configured to execute the interaction function corresponding to the interaction control for performing interaction between the virtual object and the first virtual prop. The underlined portion about falls within the category of a mental process because choosing an object could be something that is done in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are merely applying the abstract within a virtual environment and the other elements of the claim appear to be either pre-solution or extra solution activity which does not bring the claims into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements beyond what has been discussed above is “an electronic device” which is a generic computer which the Supreme Court in Alice determined to not be enough to bring an abstract idea into patent eligibility.
All dependent claims have been analyzed but do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Using claim 2 as an example, line 2 it states, “in response to appearance of the at least two virtual props…,” (emphasis added). However, in claim 1 it already states, “in response to appearance of at least two virtual props.” Thus it is unclear if the appearance in claim 2 is the same as the appearance in claim 1 or a different appearance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0034979 to Yamamoto.
With regard to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a prop interaction method in a virtual scene, performed by an electronic device, the method comprising: displaying at least part of a region in the virtual scene in a human-computer interaction interface, the at least part of the region comprising a virtual object (figs. 7A; 7B); in response to appearance of at least two virtual props in the at least part of the region, each having a corresponding interaction function in the at least part of the region, choosing a first virtual prop in the least two virtual props to be in a selected state based on at least a spatial relationship between each of the least two virtual props and the virtual object (0061-0065); and displaying at least one interaction control corresponding to the first virtual prop, wherein the interaction control, when triggered, is configured to execute the interaction function corresponding to the interaction control for performing interaction between the virtual object and the first virtual prop (0061-0065; 0071).
With regard to claim 2, Yamamoto discloses in response to appearance of the at least two virtual props in the at least part of the region, applying a first display mode to the at least two virtual props in the at least part of the region, wherein a significance degree of the first display mode is positively correlated with a feature value of each of the at least two virtual props, and the feature value comprises at least one of the following: a usage frequency of the virtual prop, a distance between the virtual prop and the virtual object, and an orientation angle between the virtual prop and the virtual object (0061-0065).
With regard to claim 5, Yamamoto discloses wherein the choosing a first virtual prop in the least two virtual props to be in a selected state further comprises: performing any of the following processing: performing sorting processing on the at least two virtual props according to a usage frequency, and determining a virtual prop ranked first as the first virtual prop; performing sorting processing on the at least two virtual props according to a scene distance, and determining a virtual prop ranked first as the first virtual prop, wherein the scene distance is a distance between the virtual prop and the virtual object in the virtual scene; and performing sorting processing on the at least two virtual props according to latest usage time, and determining a virtual prop ranked first as the first virtual prop, wherein the latest usage time is a moment at which the virtual object uses the virtual prop last time (0061-0065).
With regard to claim 6, Yamamoto discloses wherein the choosing a first virtual prop in the least two virtual props to be in a selected state further comprises: obtaining historical interaction data and a prop parameter of each of the at least two virtual props in the virtual scene, wherein the historical interaction data of each virtual prop comprises a scene parameter for each use of the virtual prop; performing the following processing through a first neural network model: extracting a scene feature from the scene parameter, and extracting a prop feature from the prop parameter; performing fusion processing on the scene feature and the prop feature, to obtain a first fused feature; and mapping the first fusion feature into a first probability of each virtual prop adapting to the virtual scene; and performing sorting processing on the at least two virtual props in descending order of the first probability, and determining a virtual prop ranked first as the first virtual prop (0061-0065; 0081).
With regard to claim 7, Yamamoto discloses wherein the method further comprises: for at least one second virtual prop not in the selected state, displaying a switching control corresponding to the at least one second virtual prop, wherein the second virtual prop has the interaction function, and the switching control is configured to be triggered to display an interaction control corresponding to the at least one second virtual prop (0067).
With regard to claim 8, Yamamoto discloses wherein the method further comprises: when there is one second virtual prop not in the selected state, in response to a trigger operation on the switching control, displaying at least one interaction control of the second virtual prop, and hiding the at least one interaction control of the first virtual prop (0067).
Claims 9, 10, 12-15, and 18-20 are mirrored claims to claims 1, 2, and 5-7 and are rejected in like manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0176163 to Ishihata.
With regard to claims 3, 11, and 17, Yamamoto does not appear to be explicitly clear about a fan shaped region. However, the combination of Yamamoto and Ishihata teaches wherein the choosing a first virtual prop in the least two virtual props to be in a selected state further comprises: determining a first fan-shaped region with the virtual object as a center of a circle, a set distance as a radius, and a first angle as a central angle, wherein an orientation of the virtual object coincides with an angular bisector of the central angle of the first fan-shaped region; determining at least one first candidate virtual prop that overlaps with the first fan-shaped region, wherein a projection region of the first candidate virtual prop on a ground in the virtual scene overlaps with the first fan-shaped region; and determining one first candidate virtual prop in the at least one first candidate virtual prop as the first virtual prop (Yamamoto at 0061-065; Ishihata at fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to used the teachings of Ishihata with the disclosure of Yamamoto in order to better mimic the line of site that can be seen in the real world by using a fan shaped line of site in the virtual world as taught by Ishihata.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715